I’ve been a supporter of comprehensive constitutional reform – not just the voting system – since the 1983 election, when I was 14. Back then the Conservatives won less than 34,000 votes for each elected MP, Labour won more than 40,000 for each MP and the Liberal/SDP Alliance more than 338,000 votes for each MP. It somehow took nearly ten times as many voters to elect a Liberal as a Tory and Thatcher had an unassailable Commons majority of 144 with a minority of the vote.

I was disgusted and a few years later became a founder member of the Liberal Democrats, only to leave in the late 1990s as the Manchester party plotted to undermine that city’s Commonwealth Games with fabricated stories to scare people off Labour.

Yet while I still yearn for a more proportional electoral system, I am not convinced I can vote for the Alternative Vote in the upcoming referendum and I’m shocked the Lib Dems asked Labour to introduce it without a referendum.

The Alternative Vote is not a system of proportional representation. It will generate more Lib Dem MPs, but is very unlikely to support smaller parties (check out the Electoral Reform Society projections). That’s because to win an AV election, you really need to come first or second on first preferences. The Greens, for example, tend to come third or fourth and would be eliminated early on. They could get 10-15% of the popular vote and have no more MPs under the Alternative Vote.

Given its flaws, the Alternative Vote is not even Liberal Democrat policy. While their statements on voting systems have been increasingly vague in recent years, preferring ambiguous calls for ‘fair votes’, they have always supported the Single Transferable Vote(STV) and multi-member constituencies. This is also the favoured system of the Electoral Reform Society and all the other leading campaign groups.

So when the Jenkins Commission into electoral reform failed to back STV in 1998 it was a surprise that took the wind out of the reform movement’s sails. Crucially, Jenkins did not recommend AV, but AV+ whereby parliament would be topped up with MPs from under represented parties. This idea, which would probably create additional Green and a couple of UKIP MPs, is not in the Lib Con proposal.

It gets worse. The coalition has also adopted the Tory idea of reducing the number of constituencies in Scotland, Wales and the inner cities (where Cameron has failed to win support). That is to say, the coalition appears only to support reforms that suit members of the coalition.

Set this in the context of the 55% lock in. This rushed legislation, that even the most prominent supporters admit transfers power to the monarchy, tries to stabilise the coalition by making Cameron virtually unsackable. Far from the much hyped reforming hung parliament, this is quickly emerging as a gerrymandering Lib Con.

The coalition says we have five years to the next election, but won’t take the time to offer the country a new constitutional settlement of which we can all be proud.

Supporters of real liberal democracy need to stand up and say no to partial reforms that suit narrow party interests much more than they suit any democratic agenda. Say no to this obscene gerrymandering in the name of liberal democracy. Say yes making Britain a world beacon for liberal democracy.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

Supporters of fixed term parliaments, like Unlock Democracy director Peter Facey (formally Charter 88), have been quick to claim that those of us opposed to raising the bar for a parliamentary dissolution vote are misguided. We fail to understand the 55 per cent lock-in is necessary to guarantee fixed-term parliaments; in fact, it should be higher. They call this an ‘enhanced majority’. It is also a proposal for an enhanced monarchy; bizarrely leading democracy campaigners seem okay with that.

They point out that the Scottish Parliament requires a two-thirds majority. This is true. But it is also true that the Scottish Parliament has 28 days to select a First Minister or be dissolved. Moreover, the First Minister cannot succeed to office without securing a simple majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament; it would be possible for a simple, but determined, majority of MSPs to force a dissolution.

This flags up an important difference between the UK and Scottish parliaments. The Scottish Parliament appoints the First Minster, but the Prime Minster is appointed by the Queen.

If the current coalition were to fail, either because the Lib Dems pulled out or were sacked by David Cameron using powers reserved to him, the 55 per cent rule would protect the new minority Conservative government from dissolution. A simple majority of MPs could pass a vote of no confidence in that administration, but it is unclear what effect that would have.

The danger to our democracy is that the Queen would be forced to decide on Cameron’s successor and that this process would lead to a politicisation of the monarchy.

Amazingly, Peter Facey is unconcerned by the unintended consequence of rushing through poorly thought out legislation for fixed term parliaments without consultation. By text he writes; ‘Under convention the person she feels can command support in the House. This what nearly happened in Canada last year. I agree we need better rules, but you don’t get them by doing nothing.’

But bad legislation may not be better than nothing, especially when 55 percent would often be too low to stop the PM at the head of a majority government from dissolving parliament to suit party interest. That the Tories have 47 percent of the seats in parliament, just enough to block dissolution, is especially suspicious and makes this look like legislation designed with just this election result in mind.

By email Peter Facey says:

‘Stephen
We have already proposed prior to the election along with organisations like Democratic Audit that the PM should be elected by Parliament rather than use the Queens Speech as the way of confirming a government.
What you are pointing out is the difficulty of our unwritten constitution that depends on convention.
Peter’

This is a so what. The current proposal appears not to include a reduced role for the monarch and a PM elected by parliament. It is unlikely the Conservatives would support a move against the monarchy.

Removing incumbent Prime Ministers’ ability to call an election at a time to suit themselves is desirable, but we must be alert to the unintended consequences of such a move. A politicised monarchy is too high a price to pay. Given that neither our upper chamber nor head of state are elected, it appears we simply don’t have the democratic infrastructure to support fixed term parliaments.

8 graffiti, scrawl more »

Despite my scepticism the Lib Dems and the Conservatives have successfully pulled off a coalition. So determined is the Lib Con Alliance to hold on to power, they plan to raise the threshold for a parliamentary no-confidence vote to 55 percent. As things currently stand that means it would take at least 14 Tory MPs to rebel for the Cameron government to fall, assuming everybody else voted to bring them down.

But with Sinn Fein absent from parliament, the BBC points out it would take at least 16 Tories to rebel before Cameron would fall.

That means that should the Lib Dems leave the coalition — or should the Conservatives sack them — David Cameron would be free to form a minority administration and govern alone. (And what are the chances Nick Clegg would be parachuted into a safe Tory seat as a ‘thank-you’?)

If you think that’s wrong visit noto55.com, sign-up for the campaign and say no to 55 percent and the Lib Con lock-in.
Update: Labour negotiator Andrew Adonis reveals gerrymandering Lib Dems wanted voting reform without a referendum.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

Speculation is at fever pitch as the Evening Standard splashes that Gordon Brown has already resigned as prime minister as talks towards a Lib-Lab pact fail.

That Lib-Lab pact, relying on the SDLP, SNP and Plaid Cymru, would have been a nightmare as every backbench rebellion was guaranteed success. The best outcome is a minority Tory government propped up for a couple of months with supply and confidence from the Lib Dems… and there’s every reason to think that will happen thanks, in part, to the Lib Dems’ triple lock, which has been all but ignored by journalists standing around in Westminster streets when they’d be better off reading up on the parties’ constitutions and procedures.

A Lib-Con pact may well be agreed, but it will need three-quarters of Lib Dem MPs and three-quarters of their federal executive to sign it off. That will not be easy. If Clegg has a majority of less than three-quarters he can go to a special conference — the second lock — but that will take time and he needs a two-thirds majority. The third lock, in the event that the special conference goes with Clegg, but by less than two-thirds, is a membership ballot.

Nevertheless, don’t be surprised if the Lib Dems go down that route. Given the time constraints, they would have to provide supply and confidence to the Tories until all this party democracy stuff had worked its way out. Cameron would be a lame duck prime minster. He’d get the title and be allowed to appoint ministers, but the Lib Dems would stop him passing any legislation they didn’t like.

In parallel, Labour would be regrouping around a new leader pushing for a no confidence vote against a shambolic administration, drowning in bad blood.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

‘At the last election Labour tried to con people in Withington, by saying that if they voted Lib Dem they would let the Tories back in. This wasn’t true, and it won’t be true at the next election.’
– John Leech MP, Liberal Democrat, by e-mail May 2008

Check the date on that email. It appears that nothing upsets John Leech, Liberal Democrat MP for Manchester Withington, more than being called a Tory… and when he says Labour has warned people that a vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for Cameron he’s right… but we now know that this was no Labour con.

So angry has the Tory slur left John, he’s felt compelled to return the favour, using images of the woman he’s described as ‘the worst prime minister of the twentieth century’ (by email, February 2007) to scare people off Labour.

To be fair as time has gone on, I’ve found John’s anti-Conservatism to be on the wane. Regular readers of this blog won’t be surprised to learn I wrote to him, as my local MP, to express concern over the Atlantic Bridge. I received no reply.

And I’ve warned John Leech about Calamity Clegg in the past.

Yet I know that John Leech is not the only Lib Dem MP who is strongly anti-Tory. The expectation of perpetual opposition makes it easy for Lib Dems like John to ignore the fact their leader is, at heart, a Europhile Conservative who felt obliged to leave the Tory party because the Eurosceptics had taken over the asylum. At heart Lib Dems know Clegg isn’t that fussed about electoral reform, which is why they’ve felt it necessary to issue warnings.

The tragedy for Lib Dems like John is further compounded by the knowledge that Nick Clegg has not even brought them electoral success, just the reverse. He’s just been lucky enough to be in the chair at a time when neither Labour nor the Conservatives could win over the electorate.

Accepting perpetual opposition has allowed Lib Dems to be all things to all people. Suddenly, that’s gone and they’re out of their comfort zone. Expect the Lib Dems to collapse into civil war any day now.

4 graffiti, scrawl more »

Watching these scenes of Nick Clegg receiving supporters of electoral reform one could easily think the Lib Dem leader — described on Radio 1’s news bulletins as ‘the most powerful man in Britain’ — had won the election.

For the avoidance of doubt, I guess I need to make clear that my support for comprehensive constitutional reform including a new voting system has always been strong and remains so. Nevertheless, Clegg’s antics leave me ever more convinced that any opportunity is fading quickly.

Nick Clegg appears to be more convinced by his own hype than by the election result. That result would have been disappointing for the Lib Dems even if their expectations hadn’t been raised after Clegg’s victory in the first Leaders’ Debate sent them surging in the polls. They lost five MPs and their share of the vote remained static. They also lost control of four local councils and gained none, while Labour gained five and lost none and the Tories gained three and lost seven.

Nevertheless, Clegg has managed to dominate the news not just because he is seen as this hung parliament’s king maker but because David Cameron is wisely keeping quiet.

Rather than encourage Labour and the Tories to enter into a bidding war for his support, Clegg immediately made his preference for the Conservatives clear. This should not have been a great surprise — Clegg first pledged his support to the Tories in May 2008 — but it greatly strengthens Cameron’s hand in the negotiations.

Clegg then raised his supporters’ expectations to fever pitch setting out his four priorities — ‘firstly, fair tax reform; secondly, a new approach in education to provide the fair start that all children deserve in school; thirdly, a new approach to the economy so we can build a new economy from the rubble of the old; and fourthly, fundamental reform of our political system’ — as if Cameron has no option but to concede.

Yet with more than five Conservative MPs for each Lib Dem, the Tories polling 36.5 percent of the vote to the Lib Dems 23 percent and a Lib-Lab pact adding up to less than an overall majority anyway, Cameron will feel entitled to wonder why he should give the Lib Dems anything at all.

Having promised so much, Calamity Clegg can only fail.

2 graffiti, scrawl more »

As the polls close I fear the worst. It’s been important to stay positive as once you lose your fight you lose the fight. If I’m wrong, I shall refer you to my post of yesterday and put this down to stress. But as the polls close one can admit to doubts and I fear that Cameron has snuck in with a working majority. It’s time to tighten your belts… look who’s back.

The uplifting highlight of the campaign was Gordon Brown’s speech to the Manchester Rally. A few minutes in he started listing Labour’s achievements over a standing ovation that felt like it would never end. A few minutes after that he told us what Labour would do with a fourth term, another long inspiring list.

We should have done much, much more of that.

In Burnage until 10pm last night, the leaflets I delivered warned people not to let the Tories by the back door by voting Lib Dem. That was an important message, but I’d rather have been energising them with the promise of a £7 minimum wage (a pledge I only learned of on at that rally). I fear that here in Manchester Withington the Lib Dems have held on. Their literature was not just more plentiful — they had much more money here — but more substantial too. While they didn’t run a particularly positive campaign, they weren’t shy of claiming achievements (that those claims were often dubious, is neither here not there).

But if I’m wrong… the people should brace themselves for five more years of pleasant surprises.

1 graffito, scrawl more »

As an uncomfortable election draws to a close, there’s eve of poll cheer from north of the border, where the Scots appear less inclined to choose style over substance and, if the latest poll is to be believed, are convinced by neither David Cameron nor Nick Clegg. The Tories are set to remain on the verge of extinction and if this were a Scottish Parliament election Labour would be taking seats from the SNP.

One of the many problems with the opinion polls is that their predictions assume a uniform swing from one party to another. Yet if we voted uniformly across all 650 seats, one party would win them all. The first-past-the-post system depends on wide regional and local variation. To assume a uniform swing is rather silly.

Looking deeper, there’s evidence the Tories are doing disproportionately well down south and that makes me wonder if the Lib Dem surge is a mostly southern phenomenon too.

If both these things are true, we’ll be in for a very pleasant surprise come Friday.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

As this election campaign began, Manchester Evening News chief reporter, David Ottewell, wrote a piece I meant to blog agreement with about the role of the internet in the election.

Ottewell argued that the internet is essentially an immature place filled with nasty people mounting vicious attacks, protected by anonymity. Such an environment is off putting to most people and so the internet would only serve a minority with views already set in stone, Ottewell argued. Perhaps that overstates the case a little, but I found myself nodding in agreement.

But now, with polls opening in a couple of days, I’m more shocked by how poorly this election has been served by the traditional media. I’ve written elsewhere of the blatant partisanship of the Evening Standard’s Paul Waugh and the Daily Mirror’s pathetic chicken man.

Today the Manchester Evening News has its chief reporter hyping an online readers poll as if it were as reliable (I took part a couple of times myself) as something commissioned from one of the major polling companies. Polls like this are just for fun.

Meanwhile, as the same newspaper has been relentlessly hyping an ordinary voter confronts the PM story as if it were something new, Ottewell ignores a very real financial scandal involving the two Lib Dem MPs on his patch fighting marginal seats. A story first broken on a local blog.

David Ottewell’s opening challenge to the internet – ‘come see how the professionals do it!’ – has proved empty. The traditional media has reported nonsense, manufactured nonsense and hyped nonsense. It has shied away from reporting stories that might be resource hungry or attract legal challenge, preferring to leave (admittedly partisan) bloggers to do that work. Bloggers risk becoming the media equivalent of the canary in the coalmine; first to break the difficult, risky stories and eager to pass their work on to a professional to share with a wider mainstream audience.

Scrawl graffiti over this »

A couple of weeks ago Simon Hoggart wrote in the Guardian of how refreshing it would be if the ordinary voters featured in TV vox pops and the like were challenged from time to time on the nonsense they spout.

It’s not just vox pops and the like that reveal the ignorance of ordinary voters. The volatility of opinion polls also shows that ordinary voters know very little; if they were expert, their views would not be so easily changed.

Sadly we’re a long way from a time when ordinary voters are challenged; just the opposite. Gillian Duffy, a woman who asks ‘All these Eastern Europeans what are coming in… where are they coming from?’ has become the celebrity of the election. Andrew Grimes of the Manchester Evening News (an old fogey who needs to sack his wig maker or barber; it’s hard to tell) reckons we’ll remember her for fifty years. Just like the ordinary Labour voters of the last election, like Margaret Dixon.

Watching Gordon Brown’s exchange with Gillian Duffy, it’s clear that not knowing where East Europeans come from is not the only gap in her knowledge. She’s an ignorant woman in many ways and yet she is also highly opinionated. That’s an ugly trait in anyone; opinions based on ignorance are clearly prejudices. That is to say, Gillian Duffy looks and sounds very much like a bigot. But to be fair to Gillian Duffy, when Gordon Brown was able to get a word in, she tended to let him put her right so perhaps bigot was slightly strong.

This encounter in Rochdale seemed to mark a return to a time before elections were dominated by X-Factor style TV debates. Back in 2005 Maria Hutchings, another ordinary Labour voter, challenged Tony Blair on television regarding her Tory council’s decision to close her autistic son’s special school. She turned out to be a something of a bigot and is now fighting one of the Tory’s top target seats.

Meanwhile, an ordinary voter, Jonathan Bartley, who had actually read the Tory manifesto and was able to quote it back David Cameron got comparatively little coverage. This voter and his disabled son confronted Cameron head on and floored the Tory leader who was able to do little more than go on about his own, now dead, disabled son.

If any ordinary voter deserved to become hero of the election it was Jonathan Bartley, but this rare exchange of substance just didn’t work for the media.

Scrawl graffiti over this »